Monday, 6 August 2007

People of the Book? Kind of...

John Barton, People of the Book? The Authority of the Bible in Christianity, 2nd edn (London: SPCK, 1993) has very little time for the likes of me! (Well... not quite true, as his tone is often gracious, and he sometimes even compliments 'fundamentalists' for their piety.) He is very concerned to undermine modern biblicism, and in this second edition also to bring out a constructive alternative. There are good things to plunder is this book - it is very erudite, eloquent and insightful - but overall I think he's wrong. Most of the time he falls for the fallacy of the excluded middle, but he is also fond of stating things as if they were arguments in favour of his position, when in fact they are not...

The arrival of Jesus, and of the new work God accomplished through him, draws its significance from the knowledge of God that already existed in Israel, and would be meaningless without it. (33)

Anyone would think, from the number of times Barton makes this claim in the early chapters of the work, Barton that he imagined it is a special insight of his own. But the ‘fundamentalists’ he criticises would say exactly the same thing. It is possible that there are some Dispensationalists, somewhere in America, who would in practice chop up salvation history in such a way as to undermine their assent to Barton's claim. But the conservative circles I move in would not do so. Nor would the even more thoroughly Reformed around the world. It is hardly the culminating blow of an argument against ‘fundamentalist’ handling of the Bible.

Bizarrely, Barton frequently couples it with a very strong anti-supersecessionist assertion. On page 33, he continues, Jesus’ God is the God of Israel, and that means not only of ancient Israel, but of Judaism. Christians who are antisemitic are cutting themselves off from their own roots, making Christianity into a new religion divorced from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the God of the Jews. For Barton to claim that to deny the religious validity of modern Judaism is the same as antisemitism, with all the unsavoury and evil associations of that word, is highly irresponsible. He does not even argue this point he merely asserts it by juxtaposition.

Now, whether or not there is any continuing significance to Judaism and precisely what that significance is is hardly an uncontroversial point among those Barton labels ‘fundamentalists’ (of course it has historical, personal, sociological and cultural significance - the question is of its theological status). It would seem to me, however, that a strong case can be made that modern Judaism is essentially a creation of anti-Christian rabbis, and bears very little resemblance to Barton’s ‘God of Israel’. If we want to get all ethnic about it, then the first followers of Jesus (later, ‘Christians’) were all Jews, and many theologians have convincingly argued that ‘the church’ is true Israel. [Perhaps the best-known of these writers today is the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, and I don't think he's signed up to antisemitism yet.] God’s plans have matured, and since the faithful remnant within Israel constitute true Israel – a common theme in later OT prophecy – that faithful remnant who embraced the maturing of God’s plans in the coming of the Messiah (ie. those who were later called ‘Christians’, first Jews and then Gentiles) are the theologically significant ones. Real ‘Judaism’ is now real ‘Christianity’, just as the faith of Abraham matured into the faith of Mosaic Judiasm as God’s revelation proceeded…

As regards Barton’s central thesis, the falsity of a ‘ fundamentalism that comes closest to adopting in Christianity theory of scripture like the majority Islamic view of the Qur'an – supernaturally inspired in origin, inerrant in content, oracular in function’ (1), I shall doubtless have more to say in future posts.

Note: for a taster on the typology of Jesus as Israel, see this post. And especially note who Leithart is dependent on: the Anglican theologian Austin Farrer, John Barton's old tutor and hero! Perhaps this is too obscure to be irony, but...